Keep in mind that there HAS been Linux viruses ("virii" if you really want to annoy some folks) but they have a rather limited life span. The question is why. And does Android do anything to interfere with that? I suspect due to the nature of how Android and Android devices are handled (closer to the Windows environment than Linux), Android is a much more interesting target.

Not exactly a clear answer, but it looks like drive-by attacks are far higher up the threat list than attacks requiring user interaction.

http://news.softpedia.com/news/Drive-By-Download-Attacks-Were-the-Biggest-Online-Threat-Last-Month-170525.shtml

Fair point. Although it should be noted, on further digging, I don't think anyone actually uncovered any malicious behavior for these apps. The banks were rightfully concerned as they didn't produce the apps and they couldn't verify that they weren't malicious. Considering the nature of the service involved, it's judicious to assume that they were. But for all we know, they could have been simply charging $.99 to people who didn't know how to set a bookmark.

I don't see why they deserve any leeway. Wikileaks has been around for 4 years now. It has had plenty of time to establish itself to include their mode of operation. During that time, Wikileaks has sought after the kind of attention that they are now getting. The romanticism that seems to attract the most fervent support is very much cultivated by Assange himself. That doesn't mean that any and all criticism is valid in it's own right; I despise the comparisons to terrorist organizations, for example. But I do see an established organization and a project leader who are worth a close look - especially when we see such emotional support thrown behind it.

These sorts of laws are being pushed in the US too. I don't think they work for us either. It doesn't really matter where the head offices of these corporations are located. They are intertwined in to multiple economies and they're selling their agenda as important to each country they're involved in.

Yeah - I understand the concept. We get a bit punchy when that happens with us too. Chinese involvement in US politics comes to mind. Grass-roots campaigns to influence our presidential elections rub me the wrong way (hey - I dislike Bush too - but I don't need some Brit telling me how to vote ;) ).

I understand how this issue would be of interest to people in Spain. But if I were sitting there with this cable in my own hands, I couldn't justify the damage it would do to my career / freedom and the US Diplomatic corp by releasing it.

I'm not so sure there's anything more to be gained. We know that media companies are pushing for these laws in all countries. That they've found representation in US diplomatic circles isn't that shocking. And certainly not shocking enough to warrent crossing the boundary of classified diplomatic communication (and all the additional baggage doing so brings).

Fair enough - nobody can make that call but Manning himself. Me, I think he's a fool. Others think he's a hero. We'll let him sort it out himself.

In my experience, work is work. I've been entrusted with millions of dollars in assets, confidential information (financial as well as state secrets), and people's lives. The only difference I've seen is whether lives are on the line (there's less stress when it's "only" money and not someone could lose their life because of a mistake). Otherwise, I take all responsibility seriously. And while I do note that when my job is coming from public funds, there's an additional layer of accountability... I don't find that the responsibility itself changes. I've found that I and most co-workers I've had over the years are motivated to do the best that they can with the resources they're given (which is why fraud, waste, and abuse is annoying - it squanders resources). Work isn't supposed to be a vacation, but it shouldn't be draconian and unduely unpleasant either (even if some jobs, by their nature, are unpleasant). I fear that too much transparency will generate a draconian feel and adversely impact Government function.

True. How to fix that is something that's constantly being worked on. Although I suspect there is a point where it simply becomes the nature of the beast - things have to be a certain way because other ways have been tried and ultimately lead to worse problems. Not that change should ever be abandoned.

Good examples. I agree that in each case, we needed whistleblowers and these issues needed to be brought to light. I don't wonder at the general motivation of activists. I just question whether they really understand what they're asking for and whether these ideals are workable.

I would suspect there's a difference between (for example) reading a Guardian article with a few excerpts from the document(s) in question and having a copy of an intact classified document in your local cache. I believe this puts people like Entrope at a disadvantage. They're going to be reliant on media analysis - whether it sensationalizes or down-plays any given topic (IMHO there's a lot more sensationalism involved once I actually look at the documents in question - but that's my bias). With that in mind, I don't believe it entirely removes them from the conversation.

Really? It's that important? I would have thought we knew this sort of thing was going on already without leaking classified documents. And with that in mind, citizens should be standing up against crap laws being pushed by money interests no matter what national borders are involved. I certainly don't think it was worth risking someone's freedom (i.e. Manning) over it.

I find this one of the more interesting aspects of these conversations. I've worked in both Federal and local government environments. I've dealt with working under the various laws that are meant to provide transparency and unearth corruption. I know what a PITA those requirements are (so many conversations that start with "If we were a private corporation, we would just X and we'd be done already"). But I've also seen enough of these bureaucracies to not trust them running without all those additional layers (other conversations start with "you know, in the private sector, Y would lose their job / never be allowed to continue" - although I have to admit that sometimes a bureaucratic machine works the same no matter if the funding is private or tax dollars). So all in all, I really want to support the concept of transparency in government. But I find myself flinching at the level of transparency activists seem to call for. Especially when a lot of activists seem to have no real idea of how these environments work.

Well, yes. We all like to be entertained.

Another pithy quip with no actual argument. How surprising.

Snarky quips do not make an argument. I have pointed out that the issue of an unlawful order has little to do with this situation. Granted - I did do it in a snarky way myself. But at least my point was a bit more involved than your equivalent of "I know you are, but what am I."

I'm not surprised. But what I do see is this cult of personality around Assange and Wikileaks that ignores any possibilities outside the narrow scope of people's ideal in what both of those are or represent. What's interesting is watching how those ideals fail to match reality to such an extent that even Wikileaks itself no longer conforms to those ideals. Yet we're going to still hear very emotional, well-worded appeals about a Wikileaks that no longer exists (and denials that Assange can do any wrong).

And this is the problem right here. This isn't about reasoned consideration of the issues or a thoughtful movement towards justice. It is an emotional thrashing about that rivals mindless patriotism and religious zealotry; cheer on anything that aligns with your position and demonize anything that does not.

The documentary I saw (which is often re-posted by Wikileaks supporters without this part) has those disillusioned individuals first complaining about Assange's focus of resources on the US cable leaks / "collateral murder" guncamera footage and then Assange's handling of that criticism (I believe the quote was "piss off").

Yes, never mind that Manning was not ordered to commit that crime. Never mind that manning had no first-hand knowledge of the crime. Never mind that the crime happened outside US jurisdiction and was being handled by the country in question. Lets invoke Nuremberg and raise Manning up on a pedestal as a hero.

Except that they are now vetting their releases through news organizations in the attempt to avoid criticism over providing names of informants like they did their last release. They are certainly protecting people now. They are certainly revealing less than "everything". And they seem to be much more interested in consequences than originally stated.